Test: Reading Comprehension- 5 - GRE MCQ

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. The passage supplies information to suggest that the religious and political groups mentioned and Whately might have agreed that a novel 

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. The author quotes Coleridge in order to 

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. The passage suggests that twentieth century Marxists would have admired Jane Austen’s noels more if the novels, a he Marxists understood them, had 

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. It can be inferred from the passage that Whately found Dickens character to be 

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. According to the passage, the lack of critical attention paid to Jane Austen can be explained by all of the following nineteenth-century attitudes towards the novel EXCEPT the 

PASSAGE:At the time Jane Austen’s novels were published – between 1811 and 1818 – English literature was not part of any academic curriculum.  In addition, fiction was under strenuous attack. Certain religious and political groups felt novels had the power to make so called immoral characters so interesting young readers would identify with them; these groups also considered novels to be of little practical use.  Even Cole-ridge, certainly no literary reactionary, spoke for many when he asserted that “novel-reading occasions the destruction of the mind’s power”.

These attitudes towards novels help explain why Ausjten received little attention from early nineteenth century literary critics.  (In any case, a novelist published anonymously, as Austin was, would not be likely to receive much critical attention).  The literary response that was accorded her, however, was often as incisive as twentieth century criticism.  In his attack in 1816 on novelistic portrayals “outside of ordinary experience, “ for example, Scott made an insightful remarks about the merits of Austen;’s fiction.  Her novels, wrote Scott, “present to the reader an accurate and exact. picture of ordinary everyday people and places, reminiscent of seventeenth –century Flemish painting. “ Scott did not use the word “realistic probability in judging novels.  The critic whitely did not use the word realism either, but he expressed agreement with Scott’s evaluation, and went on to suggest the possibilities for moral instruction in what we have called Austen’s realistic method.  Her characters, wrote whitely, are persuasive agents for moral truth since they are ordinary persons “so clearly evoked that was feel an interest in their fate as if it were our own” Moral instruction, explained Whitely, is more likely to be effective when conveyed through recognizably human and interesting characters then when imparted by a sermonizing narrator.  Whately especially praised Austen’s ability to create characters who “mingle goodness and villainy, weakness and virtue, as in life they are always mingled.  “Whately concluded his remarks by comparing Austen’s art of characterization to Sicken’s, stating his preference for Austin’s. often anticipated the reservations of twentieth-century critics.  An example of such a response was Lewes’ complaint in 1859 that Austen’s range of subjects and characters was too narrow.  Praising her verisimilitude, Lewes added that nonetheless her focus was too often upon only the unlofty and the common place.  (Twentieth-century Marxists, on the other hand, were to complain about what they saw as her exclusive emphasis on a lofty upper-middle class) in any case, having been rescued by some literary critics from neglect and indeed gradually lionized by them, Austen’s steadily reached, by the mid-nineteenth century, the enviable pinnacle of being considered controversial.
Q. The author would most likely agree that which of the following ios the best measure of a writer’s literary success? 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. The author’s discussion of Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman is primarily concerned with explaining. 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. According to the passage, the humanistic perspective of the five writers presupposes which of the following? I)The structures of the universe can be discovered through self-knowledge. II)The world can be explained in terms of humanity III)The spiritual and the material worlds are incompatible 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. The authors quotes Whiteman primarily in order to 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. According to the passage, the five writers objects to the scientific method primarily because they think it 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. It can be inferred that intuition is important to the five writers primarily because it provides them with 

PASSAGE:Despite their many differences of temperament and of literary perspective, Emerson, Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, and Whitman share certain beliefs.  Common to all these writers is their humanistic perspective.  Its basic premises are that humans are the spiritual center of the universe and that in them alone is the clue of the nature, history and ultimately the cosmos itself.  Without denying outright the existenced either of a deity or of brute matter, this perspective nevertheless rejects them as exclusive principles of interpretation and prefers to explain humans and the world in terms of humanity itself.  This preference is expressed most clearly in the Transcendentalist principle that the structure of the universe literally duplicates the structure of the individual self: therefore, all knowledge begins with self-knowledge.

This common perspective is almost always universalized.  Its emphasis is not upon the individual as a particular European or American, but upon the hyuman as universal, freed from the accidents of time, space, birth and talent.  Thus, for Emerson, the “American Scholar” turns out to be simply “Main Tinking”; while, for Whitman, the “Song of Myself” merges imperceptibly into a song of all the “children of Adam:,” where “every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”  Also common to all five writers is the belief that individual virtue and happiness depends upon the self-realization, which, in turn, depend upon the harmonious reconciliation of two universal psychological tendencies: first, the self-asserting impulse of the individual to withdraw; to remain unique and separate, and to be responsible only to himself or herself, and second, the self-transcending impulse of the individual to embrace the whole world in the experience of a single moment and to know and become one with that world.  These conflicting impulses can be seen in the democratic ethic.  Democracy advocates individualism, he preservation of the individual’s free-dom and self-expression.  But the democratic self is torn between the duty to self, which is implied by the concept of liberty, and the duty to society, which is implied by the concept of equality and fraternity. 

A third assumption common to the five writers is that intuition and imagination offer a surer road to truth than does abstract logic or scientific method.  It is illustrated by their emphasis upon the introspection-their belief that the clue to external nature is to be found in the inner world of individual psychology and by their interpretation of experience as, in essence, symbolic.  Both these    stresses presume an organic relationship between the self and the cosmos of which only intuition and imagination can properly take account.  These writers’ faith in the imagination and in themselves as practitioners of imagination led them conceive of the writer as a seer and enabled them to achieve supreme confidence in their own moral and metaphysical insights.
Q. The author discuses “the democratic ethic” in order to